Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
And that is totally your right! Now imagine if the government punished you for NOT openly showing your support to them on your sign?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
And that is totally your right! Now imagine if the government punished you for NOT openly showing your support to them on your sign?
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think they are just playing brown nose to the new boss who has been using them as a token to show how much better they are going to do things and fix all the evil things the past board did.
It's easy for the board to just throw them a bone about a boat that won't change responses much and promise them new union wages that someone else will pay for through new raised fees.
It's an easy endoresement for the board... everyone loves fire fighters... and they can hand out the candy because it doesn't cost themselves anything.
Plus they want RCFD to be their puppets because public safety is a avenue that is well within the District's scope and is a method they can use to force Disney to do things.
RCFD are the ones being shortsighted because they just want their raise.. and turning a blind eye to the puppets they will expect to be.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The contract fairy isn’t real!Because a party to an agreement NEVER drafts the agreement.
Stripes
Well-Known Member
Based on prior Florida case law, it would likely be fatal to the development agreement if it was determined that the mailed notices were required and RCID failed to do so.
Now the restrictive covenants are another matter, but I personally view the development agreement as far more important to the future of WDW.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by this?
Elijah Abrams
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Is there any chance Disney will win this battle, because it feels like to me that DeSantis is being stronger than them?
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
I've heard some rumblings that because those affected are Disney Employees, it may not matter or they may have been sent direct notice another way?
Unsure.
Also heard some say the only people that could speak out ARE those properties affected (Disney employees), so unless one of them rises and complains they didn't get a mailed noticed... the board can't do much.
Vicarious Fan
Member
are you serious? You think Desatnis is stronger? based on what exactly? he's currently getting thrashed by this and the rest of the country is looking at him like a weak govenor and consider him a laughing stock.
Figgy1
Premium Member
He's louder, sometimes a quiet measured response is the right one
Perq, from 'perquisite.'
1. A payment, profit, or benefit received in addition to a regular wage or salary, especially when due or expected.
The RCID did *NOT* give WDW a perq in having their local governing district cater to their wants.
DISNEY PAID FOR IT.
It didn't come free 'as a perq.' All the infrastructure around WDW (roads, water, sewage, power, landscaping, etc....) was paid for by Disney, and not the county. Disney paid taxes to the county, and taxes to their RCID so that they could have that infrastructure that a swamp-filled county couldn't possible afford... until it became wealthy decades later... thanks to WDW.
BTW, Universal got this non-perq perq, too. They're paying for part of the new roads surrounding Epic Universe so they can have extra nice roads with dedicated bus lanes where they want it and when they want it.
Funny, if you pay your local government enough -- beyond your local tax bill -- they do stuff for you... what a perq!!
EPCOT-O.G.
Well-Known Member
so the Florida DOT
Depends on how persistent DeSantis is and the amount of damage he does, or if the board allows laws to be broken.
Disney hasn’t gone through the motions undo their loss of control. A concession here, a concession there, suddenly they have lost a lot.
Just because Disney has an agreement signed by the old board doesn’t mean the new one will follow it. As we’re seeing, laws and contracts don’t mean anything if they aren’t enforced.
If the new board successfully acquires Disney’s land and gets new tenants, Disney’s representation may be reduced. If Disney gets the whole hostile takeover of Reedy Creek undone and these people are there, they are now permanent voting interests in the old Reedy Creek.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
It’s clear to me that the people gushing over that e-mail have never been involved in a negotiating a contract. If any company wanted to enter into a development agreement for their land with the local government who else would be drafting the agreement other than the company asking for it and/or the lawyers involved. The Ed Milgrim the e-mail was sent to is a lawyer. He obviously sent the draft to Disney first. McGowan who is Disney’s Chief Legal Counsel is obviously going to review the contract before having Disney sign it. MCGowan asked the lawyer to take his own name off as the drafter of the agreement and make the drafter Milgrim himself instead. He also mentions that the Vogel legal team won’t put their name on it since they do work for the state and fear retribution from the Governor (geez I wonder whyBecause a party to an agreement NEVER drafts the agreement.
). So, so far what we’ve established is 2 law firms and Disney were involved in preparing and reviewing the agreement before sending to the district for public comment and debate. What the email does not show is a board member involved in any way. So how is it self dealing? Wouldn’t the real smoking gun be a board member saying that they drafted the agreement but wanted their name removed for optics? Disney and some lawyers crafted up an agreement. It was forwarded to the board for review. All perfectly legal and ethical.
On the edits to the talking points for John C, it’s hard to say what that tells us without seeing the talking points and the edits. Either way John C is the district administrator not one of the board members voting on approving the agreement so again, not a smoking gun. It’s not possible for a company to craft a development agreement without discussing it with members of the government first.
So, Brayden thinks that the RCID and Disney, being distinct corporate entities, cannot talk to eachother, or collaborate.
Does he think they keep secrets from eachother? One was formed to serve the other, which pays dearly for that service.
And, as mentioned above, as they're about to make a contract with eachother, they must necessarily communicate and collaborate.
Remember this next time someone trots out his Tweets or YouTube videos as 'informative.'
Last edited:
Stripes
Well-Known Member
I don’t buy those arguments. “Affected property owners” is generally understood to be property owners adjacent to the property subject to the development agreement or relatively close by (within 300 feet).
The property owners don’t necessarily have to live there. And could even be property owners outside the boundaries of the district. There are several properties owned by other entities that are adjacent to Disney and RCID land including the Florida Department of Transportation (who would obviously be willing to sue).
Disney had a golden opportunity here and it seems they took their shot and missed just like DeSantis on his first and second round.
To say that I’m profoundly disappointed would be a gross understatement.
I truly hope something comes to light to explain how or why this happened, but as I see it now things do not look good at all for the development agreement.
As I catch up in this thread and put posts I want to respond to later in a separate tab once I get to the end, I've learned that before I spend time typing up a reply, to refresh the tab first to see if the post still exists.
Eminent domain. No, Disney doesn’t own all the land, but this is a power the new board does have.